The 378-page survey by a panel of experts from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, listed unintentional injuries, quite often caused by guns, among reasons why people in America die young more often than in other countries.

“The prevalence of firearms in the United States looms large as an explanation for higher death rates from violence, suicidal impulses, and accidental shootings,” read the recent study, based on a broad review of mortality and health studies and statistic.

The blame placed on firearms – that in the US are often being stored unlocked at home –comes amid an increasingly divided battle over American gun regulation. Fiery debate on the issue was triggered anew by the deadly shooting in a Newtown school. The massacre on December 14 claimed lives of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Conn. – 20 of whom were children.

The study highlights “dramatic” numbers of arms possessions in the US.

4. the age of the victim matters when looking at life expectancy

so if guns kill younger people, on average, than obesity, heart disease, etc., then on average each gun death pulls down the average life expectancy more than each heart attack because it robs more years off the victim's life.

i don't know for certain but i would certainly suspect that the average age of a gun death victim is significantly lower than the average age of a heart attack death victim.

so, for illustration (i.e., just pulling numbers out of my a--) it's possible for guns to account for 10% of all deaths in the u.s. yet be responsible for 20% of the lower life expectancy.

6. Same source: Poverty, Nutrition, Under-50s Dying Young.

Over a quarter of US kids on food stamps, under-50s dying young – reports

~snip~

Americans have lowest probability of surviving till 50. Also, new evidence revealed that younger generation of US citizens (those under 50) die earlier and have poorer health than their counterparts in other developed nations, according to a new study of health and longevity in US.

Americans have also a higher rate of death from guns, car accidents and drug addiction.
The US also had the second-highest death rate from the most common form of heart disease and the second-highest death rate from lung disease.

Americans even had the lowest probability of surviving till the age of 50.

The study attempts to explain such low results by highlighting American disjointed healthcare system with a large number of uninsured citizens and high levels of poverty in the country as possible reasons for the outcome.

The 378-page report by a panel of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council was based on a broad review of mortality and health studies and statistics and included other countries such as, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, Germany and Spain.

10. ...

The 378-page survey by a panel of experts from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, listed unintentional injuries, quite often caused by guns, among reasons why people in America die young more often than in other countries.

According to the CDC there were 613 unintentional deaths by firearms in 2007, drowning 3,443, 22,631 from falling, 3,375 fire, 5,997 suffocation...I don't really feel, after checking it out, that the 613 constitutes "quite often" in the context stated..

Guns are pretty fucking high on the causes of INTENTIONAL deaths. After all, that's what guns are supposed to do. Talking about how unlikely guns are to cause accidental deaths is a huge fucking distraction.

28. How about all the gun nuts stop trying to confuse the issue?

Guns are also pretty fucking high on the causes of intentional deaths. Yet gun nuts keep trying to obfuscate things by saying stupid shit like "Only 30 people were killed last year accidentally by rifles with comically oversized scopes." Citing figures for accidental gun deaths in a thread like this is utterly worthless. If you've got a frothing gun nut running at you threatening to kill you, do you give a fuck whether he kills you accidentally or not?

29. Speaking of frothing

look - you and I most likely agree on many needed gun control laws. Universal background checks, high capacity magazine ban, proper funding for the NICS system as examples.

If you want real change then you should stop demonizing every legal gun owner and try to find some common ground. I am willing to make some compromises, are you? This supercharged, hyper-sensitive atmosphere is not conducive to finding real solutions. How about calming down and trying to actually engage me in constructive dialog?

30. I'll demonize those who try to obfuscate the issue so they can continue stroking their guns.

The whole trying to downplay gun violence by saying that very few people are killed accidentally by guns is ABHORRENT. Gun nuts do this all the time. There's really nothing constructive to engage in with people who'd use tactics like that, they think that their guns are more important than human lives, it's sick. So if you would like to engage in honest debate, you're more than welcome to.

31. I bought up 30,000 gun deaths. I was confirming your post

32. The person I initially responded to was suggesting that gun deaths are no big deal

because "only" 600 or so are killed annually due to accidental gun deaths. I pointed out how ludicrous it is that we'd judge how detrimental guns are to society by the number of accidental deaths they provide. You then spend a number of posts suggesting that gun violence really isn't that bad (as if gun suicides are fine and dandy) and once again bringing up accidental deaths as if that in any way negates the terrible things guns are doing to this country. If you don't think that's obfuscation, you need to look up the term.

35. No - I was just adding some nuance to your numbers.

there are two gun problems - suicides and violent crime. They require two separate solutions.

And I don't think it is unreasonable to point out that gun deaths are at a historic low and steadily falling. If nothing else, it is necessary to counter the implicit and explicit argument made here that America is undergoing an epidemic of violence when in fact you have never been safer.

That is not downplaying gun violence - it is merely countering the emotional hyperbole that people like you bring to the discussion.

36. Historic low for this country, yet still WELL ahead the rest of the developed world.

That's rather sad, and there are still those trying to suggest that we should be happy with those numbers. You are far less likely to be shot by a gun in every other first world nation. We need to become more like those other countries. As as for your "emotional hyperbole", you can call that what you wish, but at least I haven't been downplaying gun violence using ludicrous statistics. The OP was about America's culture of gun violence, not of "gun accidents". Trying to suggest that we don't have a very bad gun problem because only a few people die "accidentally" by guns every year is unconscionable.

37. And they all have national health care that included mental health coverage

along with robust social safety networks - funny enough they have fewer suicides.

And they don't have violent criminal gangs populating their inner cities - gun violence in America is very localized. For most Americans, they are just as safe as any other country in the developed world.

But those facts don't fit your "gunz are evil" meme so I sure they are bogus too.

38. And the next highest country has one third our rate of gun violence.

Yeah, I'm all for nationalized health care. Being for gun control doesn't mean I'm against those things. But it's LUDICROUS to think that having an NHS would bring our gun violence in line with the rest of the world's first world countries.

And I don't believe "gunz are evil", that's a stupid meme you're trotting out because you don't have a legitimate argument to make. The gun nuts who are dead set against even the slightest regulation of their pets are the evil ones.

39. Here is something to consider

at the same time that gun violence was significantly declining in America, gun ownership was increasing.

I am not saying that more guns produced fewer deaths. But it is clear that more guns did not lead to more gun deaths. The numbers are clear - fewer people get killed by guns every year. And that has been the trends for 30 years.

So your argument is basically "gun violence is not falling fast enough." But will you at least admit that it is falling?

40. You are familiar with confounding variables, right?

You say: "I am not saying that more guns produced fewer deaths." Good on you, there's that logic I knew you were capable of showing. But then you go on to ruin it by saying this: "But it is clear that more guns did not lead to more gun deaths. The numbers are clear - fewer people get killed by guns every year. And that has been the trends for 30 years." There are many, many factors which led to that drop in violent crime. Having more guns VERY WELL could have and most likely DID lead to more gun deaths during that time, it's simply that the confounding variables had not been considered. Yes, gun violence has been falling, but these events still occur far, far too frequently. I won't be satisfied until gun violence in this country is in line with the rest of the first world. We're an absolute embarrassment in this regard and it needs to change.

42. More guns deaths than there would have been otherwise, comprende?

That's where the confounding variables come in, you need to familiarize yourself with those. In spite of our "drops", we're still dead last with a bullet in the first world, that's fucking terrible. And we also have by far the highest rate of gun ownership. That should give you pause, doesn't it? And, seeing as you believe causation and correlation are the same, there's no doubt that our highest rate of gun violence is due to our highest rate of gun ownership.

46. I haven't seen any of those.

I have yet to see people who think that guns are a serious issue, but we don't need to concern ourselves with mental health funding and such. The "gun grabbers" as you call them seem to be the ones who are taking the mental health issue seriously. Of course I see the gun nuts grabbing onto this issue because so long as they put attention away from their guns, they don't need to worry about losing their next precious. I haven't seen any of these people suggesting that guns are the ONLY problem. But we did see that evil fuck from the NRA come out a couple weeks ago and suggest that they are the only solution.

49. Derrrrp. I never once suggested that mental health not be a big issue.

What I suggested is that the gun nuts use mental health as an excuse to do nothing about guns. BOTH need to be addressed, and the "gun grabbers" as you've called them will readily admit to that. It's the gun nuts who will say the problems are anything BUT guns.

11. Every single delusional gun nut needs to see this:

It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that NO ONE is capable of taking out a shooter or defending themselves without hurting and killing many, many other people. Tunnel vision, adrenalin make the difference. Not to mention that real life is not like a shooting range. Lots of delusional gun nuts who think they're Rambo.

14. Are you flogging that ABC video again?

A totally set-up job. Laughable. Two attackers against one defender, the defenders were wearing gloves for no reason except to hinder their gun handling, the attackers knew exactly which student had the gun ahead of time, and still each defender scored at least one hit and NO INNOCENT BYSTANDERS WERE STRUCK BY THE DEFENDERS. Oh yeah, that proved a lot.

22. I watched the video and I have to concur with the protestations, at least somewhat ...

To say it's PROOF that 'NO-ONE, beyond a shadow of a doubt (etc)', is overstating the evidence pretty sharply. No offense, but I really think we don't further the cause of enacting reasonable gun-control measures by the use of glaring hyperbole in this manner. It would be a lot more accurate to say (something like) that the study 'strongly suggests' that the actual utility of gun possession by civilians in an unexpected, rapidly-developing shoot-out situation ... is limited.

17. Guns explain part of the difference in life expectancy, but not all of it.

A study from a few years ago estimated the reduction in life expectancy due to guns at about 104 days. That's a lot, but the gap with other nations is years, so even if there were no guns in the US, we would still be far behind.

Here is a chart that compares the reduction in life expectancy due to guns and some other causes of death.

48. Is the headline offered as an argument against universal health coverage?

If the cause of the US life expectancy lag is gun violence then we have been fretting about our health-care system needlessly.

Fortunately for single-payer fans like myself, the headline is so indifferent to honesty as to rise to the level of a lie. It states something as a fact that is false.

Gun violence lands US lowest life expectancy among rich nations

This means that gun violence is the thing that causes the US to have the lowest life expectancy among rich nations, and that if US gun deaths were set at the gun death rate of a typical rich country then our life expectancy would not be the lowest.

Does ANYONE actually believe that? I doubt the people involved in the study do.

­The 378-page survey by a panel of experts from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, listed unintentional injuries, quite often caused by guns, among reasons why people in America die young more often than in other countries.